There is a theory that most people believe they have had some kind of encounter with the dead - or whatever these things are.

It is also postulated that the dark matter in the universe may hold the key to a further dimension which may explain the spirit world. Quantum physics certainly opens the door to this strange idea, if we explore what Einstein expounded.

If you have had an experience please tell us what it was, where and when, etc. Then I will mention my own brush with the supernatural.

That is because photography is inadequate and un-secure. You blame the ghost when it is the camera which is debunked.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So a camera, which we know exists, and know how it works, and know that it works as it was empirically designed to work, and we can empirically test the results to validate these claims, is in fact - debunked.

because it can't take a photo for something concocted from pure fantasy, for which there isn't one single shred of evidence other than the testimony of the highly suggestive, overly credulous, or outright befuddled.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So a camera, which we know exists, and know how it works, and know that it works as it was empirically designed to work, and we can empirically test the results to validate these claims, is in fact - debunked.

because it can't take a photo for something concocted from pure fantasy, for which there isn't one single shred of evidence other than the testimony of the highly suggestive, overly credulous, or outright befuddled.

Priceless, thank you JP that was the funniest post so far....

If you consider a camera to be more accurate then your own eyes then that is your own defect and not mine.

My eyes see something which the camera fails to record then I still believe my own eyes.

And just for the record = My eyes record empirical evidence, while a camera picture is not empirical evidence because cameras are known to be inadequate and unreliable.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between a conclusive explanation and a possible explanation. Debunkers and professional skeptics (especially those who make money via debunking) will often use trickery and logical fallacies to convince you that something is fake.

Here's a good example:

National Geographic ran a debunking show called "Is It Real?"

The episode on ghosts, of course, dealt with easy targets - especially psychics who are rather easy to debunk. However, the National Geographic team actually stayed overnight in a reputedly haunted house to see if they could record Electrical Voice Phenomena (EVP) ... and they did. They actually recorded an unexplained voice.

What National Geographic did, then, was to stir up a debate about what the voice was actually saying. In other words, they tried to make the audience forget that the team recorded an unexplained voice and instead focused on the exact wording (which was a bit hard to hear). The show made it sound as if EVPs are only valid if you can clearly hear the words. Never mind the fact that there was an unmistakable human voice on that tape regardless of what the voice actually said.

This is a typical way in which debunkers will play with the minds of their audiences. Both ghost and UFO debunkers will often shine the spotlight on the craziest, most easily debunked cases and interview the biggest crackpots in the field in order to simply make the whole topic look bad. Corrupting the image of the topic and making it socially unacceptable is perhaps the biggest tool in the debunker's toolbox.

The bit in bold doesn't even make sense. You obviously didn't understand what I meant, i.e. that there was a rational explanation for all the celebrated ghost photos (to the best of my knowledge) and that explanation is usually that they've been faked. That doesn't prove ghosts don't exist and I wasn't suggesting it did. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims that ghosts exist but that photographic equipment cannot record them though. Which is in keeping with most of the claims you make on here I suppose.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between a conclusive explanation and a possible explanation. Debunkers and professional skeptics (especially those who make money via debunking) will often use trickery and logical fallacies to convince you that something is fake.

Here's a good example:

National Geographic ran a debunking show called "Is It Real?"

The episode on ghosts, of course, dealt with easy targets - especially psychics who are rather easy to debunk. However, the National Geographic team actually stayed overnight in a reputedly haunted house to see if they could record Electrical Voice Phenomena (EVP) ... and they did. They actually recorded an unexplained voice.

What National Geographic did, then, was to stir up a debate about what the voice was actually saying. In other words, they tried to make the audience forget that the team recorded an unexplained voice and instead focused on the exact wording (which was a bit hard to hear). The show made it sound as if EVPs are only valid if you can clearly hear the words. Never mind the fact that there was an unmistakable human voice on that tape regardless of what the voice actually said.

This is a typical way in which debunkers will play with the minds of their audiences. Both ghost and UFO debunkers will often shine the spotlight on the craziest, most easily debunked cases and interview the biggest crackpots in the field in order to simply make the whole topic look bad. Corrupting the image of the topic and making it socially unacceptable is perhaps the biggest tool in the debunker's toolbox.

JP Cusick wrote:If you consider a camera to be more accurate then your own eyes, then that is your own defect and not mine.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:If you can't see how a camera can accurately record something when human eyes might be deceived then your either not thinking or incapable of thinking, time lapse photography? Infra red film? just as two examples, do try and think before you make such silly claims and statements JP.

My eyes see something which the camera fails to record then I still believe my own eyes

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:The problem is you believe them unquestioningly, even though we have absolute proof that our eyes and other senses can be very easily deceived, so you're deluding yourself with wilful ignorance, which is your choice of course, but don't expect your claims to go unchallenged. Now I again ask do you believe humans can do magic when you see a magic show, and the "magician" performs a "magic" trick? Think carefully now.....also I'd like you to explain the science of something that my eyes can see which can't be recorded by any camera?

.

And just for the record = My eyes record empirical evidence, while a camera picture is not empirical evidence because cameras are known to be inadequate and unreliable.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:That's utter nonsense, as again you're ignoring that human eyes can be deceived, you also seem to be dishonestly suggesting a camera can't accurately record what the eyes see, I'd love to hear your proof for that statement, as so far you've only implied it's something to do with the metaphysical nature of the fantasy you claim can't be recorded, which is hilariously funny, but nonsense.

JP Cusick wrote:My eyes see something which the camera fails to record then I still believe my own eyes.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:So when your eyes see only a few miles into the sky and cameras attached to electron microscopes map the universe, you're suggesting that what your eyes are seeing is correct, and the universe is just a few hundred miles across? Not the billions of light years that the camera has recorded? I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.

And just for the record = My eyes record empirical evidence, while a camera picture is not empirical evidence because cameras are known to be inadequate and unreliable.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:The exact opposite is true, your eyes can be deceived by light, shade, colour, your brain, etc etc, in instances where a camera would empirically record exactly what the settings and the film allowed.

What's very funny here is that if someone claimed to have a photo of a "ghost" JP would burst his loins in joy and shout it's veracity to the rafters. How do theists like this not see how subjective they're being? Or do they dishonestly not care?

I wonder if JP accepted the photo of mother Teresa where she appeared with what looked like a halo of light around was empirical evidence of her being a saint? Not only would this be a direct contradiction of his claims thus far for photography he would be allying his position to the church, even though in fact we now from the photographer who took the photograph that the light defect was down to a new and experimental film for low light photography. Does any of this represent a logical dichotomy to him I wonder, or will he cherry pick what to accept based on his presupposed beliefs as he's done in every instance thus far?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What's very funny here is that if someone claimed to have a photo of a "ghost" JP would burst his loins in joy and shout it's veracity to the rafters. How do theists like this not see how subjective they're being? Or do they dishonestly not care?

Living in a world that is filled with evidence for a world view that they cannot or will not accept they will clutch at any straws made available to them and they need only as little justification for their argument as they think that we have for ours.

Because you stated that you thought there were no famous ghost photos that haven't been debunked. My point was that a debunking often isn't a debunking because of the way debunkers approach the subject. They don't actually "debunk" the photos nor do they prove that they're fake. Granted, a good number of them ARE fake, which is why I said that PhotoShop has pretty much destroyed any photographic evidence - even if the photo is legitimate. Now debunkers can just claim every ghost photo was manipulated with computer software. That isn't debunking the photo unless the photo is rigorously tested by non-biased experts in the field of photography.

As I said elsewhere, another popular trick debunkers use is to try and reproduce the photo or video. Granted, reproduction is one of the mainstays of the scientific method, but it isn't the ONLY one. Yet debunkers will often announce that a photo or video is officially debunked if they can reproduce the effect. That would be like saying the Normandy landings on D-Day were hoaxed because Steven Spielberg was able to reproduce the D-Day landings in the movie Saving Private Ryan.

Shirina wrote:... They don't actually "debunk" the photos nor do they prove that they're fake. Granted, a good number of them ARE fake, which is why I said that PhotoShop has pretty much destroyed any photographic evidence - even if the photo is legitimate. Now debunkers can just claim every ghost photo was manipulated with computer software..

Surely people don't use photoshop to fake photos. What on earth would Kim Jong-Un say?

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:That's not one of mine is it? I have re-read my posts and can't find it either, it certainly doesn't ring any bells, it may be you've mixed me up with a quote I've used.

Because you stated that you thought there were no famous ghost photos that haven't been debunked.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:That was Dan I believe, though I may have quoted the post in which he said it.

My point was that a debunking often isn't a debunking because of the way debunkers approach the subject. They don't actually "debunk" the photos nor do they prove that they're fake. Granted, a good number of them ARE fake, which is why I said that PhotoShop has pretty much destroyed any photographic evidence - even if the photo is legitimate. Now debunkers can just claim every ghost photo was manipulated with computer software. That isn't debunking the photo unless the photo is rigorously tested by non-biased experts in the field of photography.

As I said elsewhere, another popular trick debunkers use is to try and reproduce the photo or video. Granted, reproduction is one of the mainstays of the scientific method, but it isn't the ONLY one. Yet debunkers will often announce that a photo or video is officially debunked if they can reproduce the effect. That would be like saying the Normandy landings on D-Day were hoaxed because Steven Spielberg was able to reproduce the D-Day landings in the movie Saving Private Ryan.

Just wishing to take a side trip for a little while with the subject of spiritualists. To me they are deceivers that sometimes believe their own deceptions. However as a result of my attendance at a patient support group I am coming into contact with a larger number of older women and it is this group that seems to be preyed on by these spiritualists.

These (older) women seem to be ideal subjects as they all have recently deceased relatives that they think might have unfinished business with them. I don't know if these spiritualist are doing more harm than good, I just don't know. I have seen cases where somebody's whole life seems to of changed for the positive as a result of contact with one of these groups, someone I was quite close to (not romantically) and it just seemed to give her the boost she needed and I'm very happy for her and I just hope that she does not get let down by them in the future as that could be catastrophic for her.

I have no hard and fast conclusions to offer, I just want to know other peoples opinions.

Heretic wrote:Just wishing to take a side trip for a little while with the subject of spiritualists. To me they are deceivers that sometimes believe their own deceptions. However as a result of my attendance at a patient support group I am coming into contact with a larger number of older women and it is this group that seems to be preyed on by these spiritualists.

These (older) women seem to be ideal subjects as they all have recently deceased relatives that they think might have unfinished business with them. I don't know if these spiritualist are doing more harm than good, I just don't know. I have seen cases where somebody's whole life seems to of changed for the positive as a result of contact with one of these groups, someone I was quite close to (not romantically) and it just seemed to give her the boost she needed and I'm very happy for her and I just hope that she does not get let down by them in the future as that could be catastrophic for her.

I have no hard and fast conclusions to offer, I just want to know other peoples opinions.

Heretic

I am deeply suspicious of their motives, and even more dubious about their claims. Like you I have female relatives, oddly enough who are not overtly religious, who spend money on sessions with these people. I chide them gently on it, don't bother booking just turn up, if she's any good she'll know you're coming, that kind of thing, but unless or until their claims are verified or validated empirically by reliable scientific research I shall remain incredulous.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I ma deeply suspicious of their motives, and even more dubious about their claims. Like you I have female relatives, oddly enough who are not overtly religious, who spend money on sessions with these people. I chide them gently on it, don't bother booking just turn up, if she's any good she'll know you're coming, that kind of thing, but unless or until their claims are verified or validated empirically by reliable scientific research I shall remain incredulous.

From my observations there seems to be a kind of placebo effect which is what I was describing in my friend. If this placebo effect is genuine for a small group of people could this be justification enough to not try and get them banned.

As to the practitioners (makes them sound like doctors doesn't it) themselves they are split between conmen who are trying to deceive everybody (regulations may be needed just because of this element) and those who genuinely believe in what they are doing, who are as much deceived as deceiving.

1: Our minds have been proven to be extremely susceptible to hallucination, illusion and delusion, seeing is not believing and what we see is described as a best guess.So it is possible we can see things that do not exist.

2: Our consciousness is physical and a physical property of our physical brain, we can measure electro magnetic patterns in our consciousness, when the signals stops the brain is dead, logic dictates the thing that delivered our mind is rather necessary for its existence. We accept our consciousness can be affected/damaged by mere trauma to the brain but seemingly if the brain dies the consciousness is in perfect working order, care to explain the logic behind this deduction?We evolved this ability, it is likely to be part of our evolution, not some external addition that can be extracted after death.

3. If people are drifting over from parallel dimensions or universes as some kind of hologram, why are they so elusive and secretive, why not talk much and why wear funny outfits from our past ?

What does " woooooo" mean in another dimension?

I go for option 1, option 2 is simply death denial, and option 3 seems almost pointless, if they are drifting over here then its by accident, they don't do anything meaningful.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I ma deeply suspicious of their motives, and even more dubious about their claims. Like you I have female relatives, oddly enough who are not overtly religious, who spend money on sessions with these people. I chide them gently on it, don't bother booking just turn up, if she's any good she'll know you're coming, that kind of thing, but unless or until their claims are verified or validated empirically by reliable scientific research I shall remain incredulous.

From my observations there seems to be a kind of placebo effect which is what I was describing in my friend. If this placebo effect is genuine for a small group of people could this be justification enough to not try and get them banned.

As to the practitioners (makes them sound like doctors doesn't it) themselves they are split between conmen who are trying to deceive everybody (regulations may be needed just because of this element) and those who genuinely believe in what they are doing, who are as much deceived as deceiving.

Heretic

Tricky one this, if there was solid evidence that no one was being harmed, and that it was of some benefit, regardless of whether it was complete hokum or not, then yes I'd be inclined to let it slide, life is tough enough, whatever get's you through it etc. I'm not entirely convinced this is entirely harmless though, but perhaps it's just my natural revulsion at the idea that emotionally vulnerable people might be being conned.

1: Our minds have been proven to be extremely susceptible to hallucination, illusion and delusion, seeing is not believing and what we see is described as a best guess.So it is possible we can see things that do not exist.

2: Our consciousness is physical and a physical property of our physical brain, we can measure electro magnetic patterns in our consciousness, when the signals stops the brain is dead, logic dictates the thing that delivered our mind is rather necessary for its existence. We accept our consciousness can be affected/damaged by mere trauma to the brain but seemingly if the brain dies the consciousness is in perfect working order, care to explain the logic behind this deduction?We evolved this ability, it is likely to be part of our evolution, not some external addition that can be extracted after death.

3. If people are drifting over from parallel dimensions or universes as some kind of hologram, why are they so elusive and secretive, why not talk much and why wear funny outfits from our past ?

What does " woooooo" mean in another dimension?

I go for option 1, option 2 is simply death denial, and option 3 seems almost pointless, if they are drifting over here then its by accident, they don't do anything meaningful.

I suspect it's a bit more complicated than that. When we experience something in the real world we create a map or model of that experience in our brain. The next time we have a similar experience we refer primarily refer to the model we have already built, we might adjust the model slightly if there is a significant change between our model and our new experience. As our model gets more sophisticated we refer less and less to the actual real world and instead refer to our model. Could there be an element of something in the real world causing us to experience a model that we have created of someone that is now dead.

That's the best I can come up with for now and it is plausible (to me).

Could there be an element of something in the real world causing us to experience a model that we have created of someone that is now dead.

Not sure what you mean, how do you experience a model of something you have never seen, how could we have evolved this, do chimps see ghosts?

If you have lived in the company of someone for years you create a model of that person within the brain and the longer you know them the more sophisticated the model. The purpose of the model is so that we can use it as a kind of shorthand ie we will not need to ask their name, or how much sugar they have in their coffee/tea, we will know if they like us etc etc etc. By the time we have known someone on a near daily basis the model we have of them will be very sophisticated indeed. If that person then dies we may still expect them at certain locations, or to meet them at particular times. As we enter one of these key venues or times we may feel a very strong presence of them being there where what we are actually is some element of the model we have of them being sort of replayed in our memory, if the association is really strong we might actually think we see them perhaps for a split second or a few seconds.

I don't have a full blown theory on this but am trying to build on a very rudimentary knowledge of Neuro-Linguistic-Programming. I see a sort of logic there that beats most of the explanations that I've heard up to now.

Tosh wrote:I go for option 1, option 2 is simply death denial, and option 3 seems almost pointless, if they are drifting over here then its by accident, they don't do anything meaningful.

Tsk, tsk, Tosh ... you overplayed your hand.

It's one thing to be a "ghost atheist" in the sense that you simply reject the existence of ghosts due to a lack of evidence.

But ... you took it one step too far by claiming ghosts are something other than ghosts. That means you now have to PROVE that ghosts are hallucinations, illusions, and delusions. You can't just make bare assertions, which you very well know.

We know a mind desperate for water sees water, desperate for rest sees a seat etc etc, not too much imagination to see ones lost loved one out of despair. Our mind is intent on surviving and in moments of extreme anxiety offers us respite and hope through wishful seeing/thinking.

I recall my mother seeing my father sitting on the bed taking his socks off after his funeral, the mind plays tricks under duress, it will see, say and believe anything to escape from pain.

We are predisposed to believe in an everlasting consciousness, the thought of a finite existence unsettles us even at a sub conscious level and we want to believe we will not die.

In my humble opinion there is only physical cause and effect determinism, metaphysics is dead, and philosophy has been reduced to logic and ethics. For some the natural world is not romantic or poetic enough for the epic they wish to live in, and they embellish it accordingly with themselves as an immortal central figure.

That means you now have to PROVE that ghosts are hallucinations, illusions, and delusions. You can't just make bare assertions, which you very well know.

We can prove ghosts are illusions, delusions and hallucinations, we can create them artificially through brain stimulation, hardly a bare assertion just a rational deduction based on evidence and probability.

It is more than likely the devoted followers of Jesus believed they saw him after death, given the times and their beliefs, in effect their minds refused to accept their saviour was dead and their imagination stepped in to lend a hand.

Some people become devoted to their pets, it would not surprise me if people have seen "ghosts" of their dead dog or cat.

Because you stated that you thought there were no famous ghost photos that haven't been debunked. My point was that a debunking often isn't a debunking because of the way debunkers approach the subject. They don't actually "debunk" the photos nor do they prove that they're fake. Granted, a good number of them ARE fake, which is why I said that PhotoShop has pretty much destroyed any photographic evidence - even if the photo is legitimate. Now debunkers can just claim every ghost photo was manipulated with computer software. That isn't debunking the photo unless the photo is rigorously tested by non-biased experts in the field of photography.

As I said elsewhere, another popular trick debunkers use is to try and reproduce the photo or video. Granted, reproduction is one of the mainstays of the scientific method, but it isn't the ONLY one. Yet debunkers will often announce that a photo or video is officially debunked if they can reproduce the effect. That would be like saying the Normandy landings on D-Day were hoaxed because Steven Spielberg was able to reproduce the D-Day landings in the movie Saving Private Ryan.

Have you got a specific example in mind, i.e. a photograph that you think is genuine despite in being 'debunked'? I'm not really sure what you're getting at re: photoshop as most of the famous ones predate digital photography and were in the public domain, so to speak, before it was widespread.

Well I don't and you don't and many great thinkers have postulated about life existing elsewhere and, in all probability - some of it being very ancient and (possibly) very advanced indeed. I don't deny the arrogance of our species though.

Really? I thought I was trying to structure an explanation or mechanism for explaining what some people claim to of observed at a traumatic time, ie after the death of somebody close to them.

Tosh wrote:We know a mind desperate for water sees water, desperate for rest sees a seat etc etc, not too much imagination to see ones lost loved one out of despair. Our mind is intent on surviving and in moments of extreme anxiety offers us respite and hope through wishful seeing/thinking.

Is it despair? I thing we can assume traumatic in a large number of cases but despair might be going too far. The mind is among other things a pattern recognition device 'par exellence' and this aptitude is the very thing that helps us build a model of reality in the first place. At a time of trauma I am suggesting that when we recognise part of a pattern (or model) then it would be easy for the brain to assume the rest of the pattern (or model) even though it has not and will not occur, the brain does make use of this shorthand in order to cope with the real trauma that it is struggling to come to terms with. If you wish to use the terms "delusion or illusion or hallucination" that is your right but I am not sure how these words are used in a clinical setting or if their meanings change in such a setting and so I am unwilling to describe them in the manner that you have.

Tosh wrote:I recall my mother seeing my father sitting on the bed taking his socks off after his funeral, the mind plays tricks under duress, it will see, say and believe anything to escape from pain.

I would agree with you in most circumstances and I would like you to try and describe the mechanism that enables the brain to play such tricks, in particular I would like to see how it differed from mine as I am keen to learn about such topics in plain English rather than in the jargon found in most books on the subject.

Tosh wrote:We are predisposed to believe in an everlasting consciousness, the thought of a finite existence unsettles us even at a sub conscious level and we want to believe we will not die.

I would agree that a lot of people are conditioned to fear extinction at the time of death by many religions. I fear pain at the time of death and I fear dying with unfinished business but I do not fear death itself or extinction of the conciousness, the void holds nothing for me to fear and if the truth were known it holds nothing for anyone to fear. I suspect that most atheists have already had this realisation. Once fear of death is overcome then the stranglehold held over our lives by religion disappears and those that wield authority over us needs to seek another tool to subdue us with.

Tosh wrote:In my humble opinion there is only physical cause and effect determinism, metaphysics is dead, and philosophy has been reduced to logic and ethics. For some the natural world is not romantic or poetic enough for the epic they wish to live in, and they embellish it accordingly with themselves as an immortal central figure.

Since this part of your post has no real link with the rest of what you said I look forward to your explanation and justification of it.